"You aim at a devout life, dear Philothea, because as a Christian you know that such devotion is most acceptable to God's Divine Majesty," says St. Francis de Sales in his book "Introduction to the Devout Life".
And we can all be Philotheas, as St. Francis notes: "I have made use of a name suitable to all who seek the devout life, Philothea meaning one who loves God."

Monday, April 30, 2012

Now that the HHS contraception mandate has brought the
contraception issue into focus for Catholics, it’s time to hone in on what’s
necessary for a renewal of sexual morality and marital chastity and fruitful
multiplication…don’t you think?

When Pope Paul VI lamented
toward the end of his pontificate that “the smoke of Satan has entered the
sanctuary”, what man among us could disagree? And since the Church is based on
the fundamental structure of the family, it is in relation to the sanctuary of
the home itself that such diabolical disorientation has done the most serious
damage.

I think there are good reasons for checking our morality
meter on this subject.

Note: I am addressing only
the use of periodic continence for “spacing births”, not the use of NFP or
NaPro for achieving pregnancy.

That said…let’s start with this:

There have been statistics thrown around about the
percentage of Catholic women who use some form of artificial birth control.
There are also figures thrown around as estimates of the percentage of Catholic
couples using NFP (whether for achieving or avoiding pregnancy).

Whatever.

The stunningly obvious fact is that Catholic families –
which have been historically large – are now about the same size as the
families of the general population.

I would venture to guess that this reduction in average
family size for Catholics has come about because of an almost overpowering contraceptive
mentality in our society which has resulted in many Catholics using artificial
contraception and sterilization, against
the teachings of the Church.

But why did good Catholics start going against the teachings
of the Church on contraception? I suspect we can pin the blame on a very vocal group
of dissident theologians and others who voiced immediate disagreement,
disappointment, and resentment when they learned that Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae, had decreed that
artificial contraception was still
immoral and forbidden. This frontal attack by dissidents led to a weakening of
that teaching. And that led to many Catholics using artificial contraception.
NFP, I think, eventually emerged as a response to the fact that so many
Catholics were illicitly and immorally contracepting right along with their
non-Catholic peers.

So let’s consider the evolution of the Church’s teaching on
the duty to procreate, the use of periodic continence to limit/space births,
and the use of NFP.

In 1930, Pope Pius XI published his encyclical, Casti Connubii, which was essentially a
response to the Lambeth Conference’s approval of the use of birth control. Casti
Connubii stood by the primarily procreative end of marriage, but
acknowledged that:

…there
are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love,
and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to
consider…

Still,
there was the ever-present caveat:

…so
long as they are subordinated to the
primary end and so long as the intrinsic
nature of the act is preserved.

In 1951, Pope Pius XII’s addressed Italian midwives in his Allocution to Midwives; Fr. William
Gardner, in his excellent article Purity
Honors Creativeness, notes that this document

…seems to be the first papal
document that sanctions (albeit
conditionally) the use of periodic continence…Pius XII affirmed that married
couples have a positive duty to provide
children for the propagation of the human race, a responsibility owed to
the State, to the Church, and to God
Himself. However, the Pope also concluded that couples may have recourse to periodic
continence in order to avoid conception provided that there exist “sufficient and secure moral grounds”
and that “no artificial means are used to hinder the procreation of new life.”
(my emphases)

Fr. Gardner also mentions that the Allocution reaffirms that procreation is
the primary end of marriage, and that the “unitive” end is subordinated to it. In
addition,

…[The Pope]
further notes that all the personal,
intellectual, and spiritual enrichment that derive from conjugal life has
ultimately been placed by the will of the Creator at the serviceof posterity.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, which again affirmed that periodic continence may be
permitted for serious reasons, though the language seems a bit more liberal
here:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing
births, arising from the physical or
psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may
then take advantage of the natural cycles… (HV,
16)

But this document also reiterates that the primary end of
marriage is procreation in fairly strong language:

…[Parents] are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the
right course to follow. On the contrary,
they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds
to the will of God the Creator. The very
nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant
teaching of the Church spells it out. (HV,
10)

It seems to me that within these documents, there is a
progressive movement toward more permissive language related to periodic
continence. Still, each document reaffirms that abstaining from sexual
relations during the woman’s fertile times should be for “serious reasons”, and
that the primary reason for marriage is procreative.

Now, it also seems to me that there has been a progressive
movement amongst the faithful toward focusing moreon the fact that periodic continence is licit, and lesson the idea of “serious reasons” (which they say should surely be left up
to the couple and their pastor to determine), and even less on the
procreative end of marriage and the duty to have a “generous” number of children.

The other extreme...so sad...

The Church seems to have acquiesced to society’s
contraceptive mentality, in order to take a pastoral approach that acknowledged
the pressures of modern secular society on Catholics; these pressures have been
economic, sociological, and psychological. The “women’s movement” worked hard
to convince women that they needed more than motherhood to be “fulfilled”;
divorce laws were relaxed (leading some to warn women to have a fall-back
career option in case their husbands divorced them);, and the “overpopulation”
myth also pressured against large families.

Somehow, I am reminded of the answer Jesus gave to the
Pharisees about why Moses allowed husbands to divorce their wives, but Jesus
forbade it: “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to
divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). In a
similar way, it seems that our Holy Fathers began to allow periodic continence
as a means of limiting births because of the “hardness of heart” that was
coming over the Catholic faithful as they turned toward “modern” values at the
expense of their large numbers of children.

To attach subjective requirements for the permissible use of periodic continence
also seems to validate the point that this is a matter of Church discipline, a matter of positive law, rather
than something built into the nature of the act of sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, since this is a matter of Church discipline, it is conceivable that the permission (or
dispensation) could be reversed.

Should the
permission be reversed? Well, let’s ask ourselves this: What are the “fruits”
of this development of a view of periodic continence being permissible for “serious
reasons”? We are not seeing an increase in the birthrate among Catholics, are
we?!

By the way, I do recognize that some couples
struggle with infertility or other issues that may be kept private, and that a
small family cannot be taken as an indication of whether or how a couple is
contracepting. So stick with me; hear me out.

I think that it is quite likely that many Catholic couples
who, in the last 50 years or so, turned to the use of artificial contraception,
used the relatively new permission for periodic continence as an excuse for
their behavior. After all, they may have reasoned, if the Church allows periodic
continence to be used for avoiding pregnancy, what’s wrong with going with
something a little more “convenient”? I have had more than one woman, open to
using NFP, ask me, “So how is that really different from artificial
contraception?” (There is a
difference, but it is telling that the unbiased newcomers to the idea seem to
recognize a similar line of contraceptive thinking in both.)

What I’m getting at is this: even if periodic continence is
licit (and it is, in some circumstances),
it keeps getting liberalized in response to pressure from the secular world –
to the point that it is becoming institutionalized as NFP. The concept of
conscience has become weakened by the moral relativist climate of our society,
and I think that blinds people to the contraceptive mindset around NFP.

And that’s why I think we need to talk about NFP. We need to
investigate whether periodic continence has turned the critical question from
discernment of whether to AVOID pregnancy to one of whether to ACCEPT pregnancy.
There’s a big difference. The first, I think, emphasizes God's will, the second emphasizes our own.

Fr. Gardner makes a distinction between behavior that is licit versus behavior that is virtuous. Periodic continence, he says,
is licit, but not virtuous.

I ask those who defend and promote NFP: are you
willing to truly examine that difference (between licit and virtuous), and to
consider whether we should be helping couples move toward virtuous behavior, or
simply licit behavior? Are you willing to truly examine whether “family
planning” should be on human terms, or whether it should be more “providential”?

Sunday, April 29, 2012

While the rector of the Cathedral is away on vacation, a substitute priest - who is retired, and recently celebrated the 50th anniversary his priestly ordination - has been taking over the pastoral duties.

This Sunday, of course, is "Good Shepherd" Sunday in the new liturgical calendar. And Father decided to use a "prop" (his word) to illustrate something about Jesus the Good Shepherd.

So, he brought in a lamb named Curly-Jo to Mass. He had the lamb's owner bring the lamb forward when he began his homily.

He held the lamb and talked about the Passover story from the Old Testament. And he talked a little bit about Jesus being the good shepherd and all...

And then he carried the lamb down the center aisle so that the children could pet it. Adults could do the same, he said, since "we are all children at heart." And he noted that this was such a good thing to do for the children because "they'll always remember this".

But the church is not a stable. Mass is not a circus. The Cathedral does not shouldn't run a petting zoo.

Thanks be to God we did not have the children's choir at this Mass (Saturday evening); they surely would have sung "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and we'd have heard all about how that song is really about Jesus and His Mother, and so it's entirely appropriate to sing it at Mass.

Our daughter, who went to the Sunday morning Mass, reports that Father decided that he would "take a chance" and set the lamb down to see if it would follow him. It didn't. Apparently, it does not know his voice.

She also reports that another parishioner rolled his eyes and muttered, "We have three more weeks of this." Another parishioner I know has made arrangements to go to Mass elsewhere for the time Father will be subbing (he's been here before; people know what to expect).

And the clincher: our daughter was so irritated with the liturgical shenanigans that now she feels that she needs to go to confession. That's not how Mass should affect us.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Today,
April 28, is the Anniversary of the Dedication of St. Francis de Sales
Cathedral in the Diocese of Baker (more or less…see this post for a full
explanation of the confusion around the date!).

I
particularly liked this reading from the office of Matins for the Common of the
Dedication of a Church, comparing the building up of a church building with the building up of our own souls as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. I’ll just let St. Augustine speak for himself:

A Sermon of St. Augustine, Bishop

Dearly beloved brethren, when we keep the Dedication Feast
of some altar or church, we do well to ponder with attention and devotion
certain things connected with them, namely, how the workmen toiled to build
them and by what means the Church doth consecrate them. And if thereby we are
moved to live a more godly and righteous life, what we have seen done in these
temples made with hands, will also in some wise be done in the upbuilding of
our own souls. He lied not who said : The temple of God is holy ; which temple
are ye. And again: Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost,
which is in you? And therefore, dearly beloved brethren, since by the grace of
God, and without any antecedent merits of our own, we have been made meet to
become the temple of God, let us work as hard as we can, with his help, that
our Lord may not find in his temple (that is, in us) anything to offend the
eyes of his Majesty.

Let the tabernacle of our heart be swept clean of sin and
adorned with goodness. Let it be locked to the devil, and thrown open to
Christ. Yea, let us so work, that we may be able to open the door of the
kingdom of heaven with the key of good works. For even as evil works are so
many bolts and bars to close against us the entrance into life, so beyond doubt
are good works the key thereto. And therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let
each one look into his own conscience, and when he findeth any defilement
there, let him first strive by prayers, fasting, and almsdeeds to cleanse his
conscience, and so let him venture to receive the Eucharist.

For, if he acknowledge his iniquity (meanwhile holding
himself back from the altar of God), he will quickly obtain pardon from the
mercy of God. For he that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted. Therefore, as I have said, if he acknowledge
his iniquity, meanwhile humbly holding himself back from the altar of the
Church till he have mended his life, he need have no fear that he will be
excommunicate from the eternal marriage-supper in heaven.

Friday, April 27, 2012

This
week, two hard-hitting episodes of “The Vortex” addressed blunders of some members of the
Church hierarchy in their public statements on the issue of homosexuality. Both episodes are
embedded below; here’s a summary and some excerpts:

…First, in a televised debate
on Australia’s leading national TV network, right in the middle of prime time a
couple of weeks ago, Sydney’s Cardinal Pell was debating arguably the world’s
most high profile atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins.

…Cardinal Pell stunned the
Catholic world here by saying that homosexual civil unions were acceptable.

…He began with a good defense
of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage but then seemed to be clearly
heading down the road of saying “BUT CIVIL UNIONS ARE WELL AND GOOD”.

Voris
points out that the Cardinal had been cut off by the moderator, and was unable
to complete his thoughts; still,

…to date, there has not been
any sort of clarification from the Cardinal’s office of what he meant or even
any recognition that what he said may have easily been misconstrued to mean
something other than what the Church teaches.

The Church has been quite clear
that whether the legal issue is so-called marriage OR civil unions, the MORAL
issue remains the same. Homosexual acts can never be approved of as a good
thing. And therefore any accommodation for them in law, be it marriage or civil
unions, is evil.

Voris
points out another instance of scandal:

Again, here in Australia,
Bishop Anthony Fisher of Parramatta just this past month published an article
written by the former general master of the Dominicans – a well-known dissident
– supporting homosexual civil unions. The bishop sent this article in his personal
newsletter to his clergy, causing a shockwave in his diocese among the faithful
he came to learn of it.

The letter itself extols
marriage, “sexual difference and its potential fertility”, and does mention
that homosexual marriage “is
impossible”. But then the author adds this statement (my emphasis):

This is not to denigrate
committed love of people of the same sex. This too should be cherished and supported, which is why
church leaders are slowly coming to
support same sex civil unions. The God of love can be present in every true
love.

In
addition, Michael Voris mentions Archbishop Vincent Nichols’ recent statement
(and subsequent
back-pedaling) which also endorsed homosexual “unions” as a matter of law, and
Cardinal Archbishop of Milan Carlo Martini’s book
which contains statements opposing the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
These are not trivial errors, and as Voris says,

…[O]ne has to wonder: with big
name bishops and archbishops and cardinals around the world being so vague,
ambiguous, and apparently double-speaking on the issue, what the heck is going
on.

There appears to be an open
disobedience on the part of members of the hierarchy towards what is crystal
clear teaching that is established and restated by the magisterium. This is
causing no end of upset and pain for the faithful. It calls into doubt in their
minds the truths of the faith. If they are told to obey this and obey that – but
members of the hierarchy are free to not only doubt or disagree with the
Church’s teachings, but moreover, disagree or use squishy language in such an
open and public fashion like Prime Time TV shows, authoring books, and issuing
statements and reprinting articles – the faithful rightfully wonder, where does
that leave them.

…It’s discouraging enough trying
to evangelize the world, but when the efforts are submarined by leaders, it
doesn’t exactly paint a picture of a glorious renewal of the faith anytime
soon. Why Church leaders don’t seem to understand this is a great source of pain
and confusion on the part of the sheep.

In the
second “Vortex” on homosexuality (April 26), Voris stands in front of St.
Joseph’s Catholic Church, where, he tells us

St. Joseph's Church, Sydney

Since 1972 every Friday night
at 8pm, a Mass has been going on here celebrating not the sacrifice and
re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord to the Father for the redemption of the
world and the forgiveness of sins, but rather, the celebration of
homosexuality.

Forty years. Forty long and
miserable years; untouched, unchallenged, permitted…

It is popularly known by those
who would have a concern that these “masses” are held each week. And that
includes the Archdiocese of Sydney. The masses are said by a mix of priests
from both the archdiocese as well as a smattering of various religious orders, most
prominent of which is Missionaries of the Sacred Heart…

…[T]his blasphemy has been allowed
to continue for so long, that an entire culture has grown up here: a “gay”
Catholic culture. The New Town Gay Catholics promote a Gay Rosary, riddled with
homosexual “mysteries”.

Among their mysteries: a
celebration of what they say are the gay partnerships of King David and
Jonathon; Ruth and Naomi; and most disgusting and offensive of all, Our Lord
and Lazarus. There is also a decade dedicated to meditating on the blessings of
being homosexual as shown in the gospel account of Our Blessed Lord
encountering the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus.

After
describing such atrocities in several different countries, and noting that the
US has its own share of this kind of blasphemy, Michael Voris notes:

As one blogger recently put it,
there is no way the Church can expect to be taken legitimately in its teachings,
as long as its leaders allow this kind of activity to continue.

Two things that faithful
Catholics can do about these sorts of scandals: first, make reparation by
offering sacrifice for the sins of others. Remember that the supreme maxim of
Christianity is that the innocent pay for the guilty.

The second thing we can do is
spread the news of a fantastic group called COURAGE, an approved apostolate for
Catholics who struggle with same sex attraction…

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Because of the big brouhaha over the contraception
mandate, there’s been a lot of news commentary the last few weeks on the
subject of NFP (Natural Family Planning).

Prior to February 14, I would have applauded the
coverage, agreed with it, promoted NFP in a few blog posts, and felt really
good about the whole thing. I learned about NFP after I became Catholic, and by
that time, I’d had myself sterilized, and was approaching the end of my child-bearing
years anyway. What I read of NFP sounded very good for the relationship of
spouses, and appeared to be “acceptable” to the mind of the Church. I regretted
never having had the chance to use it in my marriage.

But that was then, and this is now, and my views on NFP
have changed radically.

On February 14, I received an email from a friend with a
link to a homily on “The Duty of Motherhood” (which I have since transcribed
and posted here). The message said:

I don't know if NFP has risen
to the level of "hot button" for you, yet, but some day it will.
Theology of the Body and Natural Family Planning will, one day, be viewed from
their rightful home in the trash bin of theological fads that did great harm to
the Church and Her faithful.

Just ask yourself: "Can I
picture Our Blessed Mother teaching young Jewish maidens to 'chart' so as to
avoid conceiving a child (or "charting" AT ALL!) and can I hear TOB
language coming from her mouth?" BOTH invite embarrassing forays into
immodesty and impurity. The questions answer themselves, providing
"insight" into what a pandering to our hyper-sexualized culture this
has really been (under the guise of "spirituality" and
"responsible parenthood").

I
admit, I was a bit taken aback. I didn’t know there was something wrong with
NFP! I did some thinking and some reading.

And I
think NFP is…well…very much misused
and misrepresented. And I suspect it
is largely practiced from a contraceptive mindset, even by faithful Catholic couples who perhaps have not fully investigated their own motives or fears.

NFP is
painted in glowing terms by its supporters: it strengthens marriage, it
encourages “communication” between husband and wife, it’s correlated with a
lower divorce rate, and it’s “healthy”. These claims may be true, but if NFP is
being used for the wrong reasons, then these wonderful outcomes are not
justified. It is not permissible to do evil that good may come of it.

NFP is
also very often presented as “acceptable to the Church”. This is implied when
parish marriage prep classes insist on the couple learning about NFP. Linking
NFP so closely to marriage preparation sends a contraceptive message, I believe.
Yes, I know that NFP can be used quite successfully to achieve pregnancy, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority
of couples who put it into use do so in order to “space births” within their
family. The message they’ve received is that it is fine and dandy to choose a
family size and limit the number of children to be born based on perceived
financial ability to support them, stress on the parents, medical concerns, and
a variety of other reasons.

That
does not speak of a great trust in God, does it? What about Divine Providence?
Is God not capable of taking care of the problems we as human parents cannot?

An article
from Catholic News Agency quotes Dr. Janet E. Smith on the subject of NFP. I’ve
listened to Dr. Smith’s talk “Contraception: Why Not?” and found it very informative;
however, I have come to disagree with her take on the validity of using NFP for
the end of spacing births and limiting family size. According to the CNA article,

Smith told
CNA on April 18 that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not an obligation to
“live without planning,” but a call to use reason while respecting the nature
of human sexuality.

Supported by the Catholic Church, NFP is a method of spacing children by practicing
periodic abstinence based on physical indicators of a woman’s fertility.

I think
that it is a misrepresentation to say that NFP is “supported by the Catholic
Church”. I think “tolerated” is a more accurate descriptor, if we want to be
perfectly honest about what the Church teaches.

As I mentioned in a previous post, NFP or
periodic continence can only lawfully be practiced without sin for serious reasons or "just
causes", according to Pope Pius XII inhis “Address
to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives" from 1951. [Fr. Ryan Erlenbush makes
the point that these terms are often misstated by NFP opponents as “grave”
reasons, and that in Humanae Vitae,
the term used is the Latin phrase “justae
causae”, or “just cause”.] Pope Pius XII mentioned and described “medical,
eugenic, economic, and social” reasons for periodic continence. Pope Paul VI
said that periodic continence could be justified if there are “well-grounded
reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological
condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances” (HV, 16).

In the CNA
article, Dr. Smith is noted to have said that

Despite
the cultural assumption that Catholics are required to ceaselessly procreate,
Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” clarified that there are
“serious reasons” for which a couple may seek to avoid conception “for either a
certain or an indefinite period of time.”

The
spectrum of these reasons “is broader
and perhaps more liberal than many think,” said Smith.

I think there is great danger in that kind of counseling,
and I think that what passes for “serious reason” can vary depending on the
trends of the times – because our human perception of “serious” is certainly conditioned
by the circumstances in which we live.

She noted
that the Church calls married couples to use
prudence in examining their physical, psychological, and financial
conditions as well as other factors when looking at the future of their
families.

Couples
should not be selfish in their decision, and they are called to look “beyond
their own comfort and convenience,” but they can morally use NFP to prevent conception for a variety of reasons beyond
mere health concerns, she said.

But Humanae Vitae makes mention several
times of the importance of seeking God’s will, not our own, in matters of
limiting family size. For instance:

[Parents] are not free to act as they choose in the service of
transmitting life, as if it were wholly
up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary,
they are bound to ensure that what they do
corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the
constant teaching of the Church spells it out.(HV, 10)

And here:

The Church is the first to
praise and commend the application of
human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man
is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order
of reality established by God. (HV, 16)

I will pause here, and call this “Part I” of a series on
NFP. I think there is much to be discussed, and that it should be discussed by the well-meaning, faithful Catholics on both
sides of the NFP issue.

For now, I’ll leave you with this thought, a comment on the last post by Fr. William Gardner:

The truly Catholic alternative
to contraceptive drugs, devices, surgeries is babies! All those with a priestly
heart should pray for greater generosity among married couples in welcoming
souls to "come to the threshold of life."

I hope to examine some of Fr. Gardner’s thoughts as
reflected in his articles on the subject…next time.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

I’m engaged in a
conversation of sorts with someone who doesn’t share my views at all! I figured
I might as well take some time to figure out what the “liberal” mind thinks,
and this person seems to think rather
than react.

It may end up being a kind of "Occupy" meets "pro-life" moment, but I'll give it a shot.

Anyway...this individual told me that he did have
some thoughts on absolute rights and wrongs, and listed these:

I
believe it's wrong to put one's desires over someone else's needs. I believe
it's wrong to treat others in a way that you don't want to be treated. I
believe it's wrong to coerce others; though coercion itself is tricky -- for
example it is okay to restrain someone (a coercion) to prevent them hurting or
killing someone else (which is itself a coercion). I believe it is wrong to
cause harm or destroy. I believe it's wrong to be dishonest.

Those sound like things I
can agree with, but they are a bit nebulous; so I asked him how his thoughts play
out on specific issues, such as abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.
About abortion he said (my emphasis):

While
it has human DNA, in my view it is a human fetus, not a human person, and no
more deserving of individual consideration than any other collection of human
cells. As the fetus develops it becomes more capable of feeling and living on
its own, and becomes more deserving of individual consideration. By the time it
can survive on its own outside the womb it seems like it's become enough of a
human being in its own right to warrant protection. Exactly when that point is seems like a good point for debate, and
as technology for keeping fetuses alive improves that point may move closer to
conception.

Well…

Even on an intuitive level,
it seems difficult to determine when a person becomes a person. Dr. Seuss had
it right, I think:

The videos below highlight the
continuity of human development. The first was mentioned on LifeSiteNews, and is a simulation of
prenatal development from conception to birth. The first few minutes are a discussion
of the technology, then you see the actual video. I particularly like the way
he was able to portray the birth of a baby using both “real” footage and
visualization imagery.

The second video is an
incredible condensation of the development of a little girl from birth to age
12 years. (H/T The
Deacon’s Bench blog)

Watch...and think about it: is the question "when does the fetus become a person?" or is it "When was this person not a person?"

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Wendi at Cradle
Stories recently had this to
say about a trip her family made to the Cathedral of their diocese (my emphases):

So we took the opportunity to
go to Mass at the Cathedral. It's the first time we've done so since moving to
this diocese.

Mass was...interesting. The music was ok, but actually a little disappointing.

What they did sing was beautiful, although the choir was sometimes overpowered
by the organ.

I just expected them to sing...more.
It was the 11:00 Mass. It was the Cathedral...you know the Bishop's home
parish.

So I expected that all the first degree stuff would be sung...it wasn't.

As I said, a little disappointing.

I thought the whole point of being the
Bishop was leading by example.

So...it then follows that his home parish should do that too...right?

I could have gone to the same Mass in any
Suburban parish and it would have been pretty
much the same.

Ah well...it did give me a greater appreciation for what I have at home.

I admit I do not have the opportunity (or inclination) to
travel far and wide – even in my own diocese – to see whether the new
translation of the Roman Missal has resulted in an improvement in the music,
and whether or not priests are singing their parts of the Mass. But I suspect
that what a correspondent wrote to me is true:

…[There has been a] consummate
failure from the top down to properly implement the new English translation of
the Missale Romanum. The Church
clearly intends that the Mass (yes, the Novus Ordo Missae) be sung:
that's patently obvious from the profusion of chant settings for the Order of
Mass – something unprecedented in comparison to the edition that's been in use
in the US now since the seventies.

The new missal provides either
the chant or the chant formulae for singing the entire Mass - Propers,
Ordinary, and Order of Mass. There's no excuse now to NOT sing the Mass.

Prior to the implementation of the new translation, the USCCB’s
website promotion of the changes stated (my emphases):

[The
Church] has been blessed with this opportunity to deepen its understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, and to appreciate
its meaning and importance in our lives… [T]he parish community should
be catechized to receive the new translation.
Musicians and parishioners alike should soon be learning the various new and
revised musical settings of the
Order of Mass.

Some parishes prepared, and some didn’t; some did a little,
and some did a lot.

But the above quote from the USCCB website hints at a very
important component of the new translation which could have made a big
difference: “musical settings”.

The third edition of the Roman Missal contains more music
than the previous editions, and it reflects the Gregorian chant roots of the
liturgy. There has been much talk (at least in some circles) of “singing the
Mass” instead of simply “singing at
Mass”. Singing the Mass – especially singing the Mass in the way it is
presented in the new Roman Missal – is a much more far-reaching change than the
changes in the translation. It’s a change not just in the words, but in how the
words are presented – with music that is truly liturgical.

Singing the Mass requires a priest to be willing to sing his
parts; it requires the choir director to motivate the choir to learn a new
style of singing along with some changes in the words; and it requires a
congregation that will embrace the effort to learn new, sung, responses. None
of this is easy, but it would be well worth it. It would bring up the sense of
awe and reverence in the liturgy by more than just a few notches. It would lead
souls toward holiness.

But it also requires a bishop who will lead his priests in
implementing the singing of the Mass.

Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix is the only bishop
I know of who has done some serious teaching about singing the Mass. That doesn’t
mean others haven’t, but Bishop Olmsted’s teaching was highly visible; he
published his comments in his monthly column in the Catholic Sun, the diocesan newspaper. (You can read all four parts
of that series here.)I don’t know whether the Mass is sung at Bishop Olmsted’s cathedral, but at
least the priests of the diocese – as well as the faithful – should have a
pretty good idea what Bishop Olmsted thinks about the importance of liturgical
music.

I did notice, as I was googling around for some information
on this topic, that Bishop Joseph B. McFadden of the Diocese
of Harrisburg, PA, instituted a diocesan-wide program for “singing the Mass”,
complete with a “liturgical musicians symposium”. Perhaps such preparation and
promotion of singing the Mass is more common than I have been thinking. Let’s
hope so!

Meanwhile, where I live, there hasn’t been much change in
the music at our local cathedral, nor at the surrounding parishes.

There is a
new Gloria, of course, but the choir
chose a setting with a repeating refrain, which is clearly not permitted (GIRM §53).
At the diocesan level, a rather bland and notably music-less presentation was
created and is available at the diocesan website for parishes to show as a Power
Point presentation, or simply download a booklet. But the presentation merely
introduces the changes in the people’s parts, and “singing the Mass” isn’t even
mentioned.

My general sense is that, in most parishes across the
country, few have switched to singing the chants, even in English, and priests
don’t seem to be using their singing voices.

And that is a problem which those of us in the pews can’t
fix. Those who have been exposed to the beauty of the chant begin to see how
the liturgy can become an integrated whole rather than a hodge-podge of styles
and languages. But they also immediately see that the priest needs to sing his
parts, too, and they ask, “How can we get Father to sing the prayers?”

The answer is: we can’t.

That’s where the leadership of the bishop comes in. And that
brings us back to the point Wendi made in her post: bishops should be leading
by example. When they do, we’ll see the Mass begin to be sung.

And then we will
begin to see progress in returning the liturgy to its rightful state of beauty
and noble simplicity.

The Chant Café notes
in a post inviting priests to the event (my emphases):

From Reverend Robert Pasley,
CMAA Chaplain:

We send out a special
invitation to all seminarians and priests. Please consider attending the 2012 CMAA Colloquium in Salt Lake
City, Utah, from June 25 through July 1. Pope Benedict XVI has called for a
hermeneutic of continuity in interpreting all Catholic teaching. There is no
greater need for continuity than in the Sacred Liturgy. If we follow the
official musical program given by the Church, we will immediately begin the
process of restoring our Catholic Identity and revivifying the Sacred Treasury
of our musical heritage. Priests,
however, must be at the forefront of this revival. If they do not sing their chants, then the solemn sung Liturgy can
never be realized, no matter how magnificent the parish choir is.

…We have a new Missal and the
chants are now standardized in our Roman Tradition. You do not have to be a professional musician. You may not even
know how to read music. You will have seven days to begin the process of understanding
what you have to do…Fathers, you not
only are absolutely necessary to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, you are
also absolutely necessary for the Mass to be sung properly according to
our Tradition!!!!!

Custom-made Altar Antependia

Click the photo and visit the page for information on purchasing altar antependia.

Translate

Catholic Contraception?

Despite the defensiveness of the promoters, the occasional critic does speak against NFP. And if one looks carefully at what the critics say, there is much to be considered. Michael Malone's book exposes many logical fallacies in the arguments of NFP promoters, and asks critical questions that, to my knowledge, NFP promoters cannot and have not answered.

My NFP book is now available!

This is a compilation of my blog posts on NFP, along with some extra commentary and explanation. Click on the image to go to Amazon and see the full description. Available on Kindle, too.

Zeal For Thy House is available!

This is a compilation of my posts on the liturgy - liturgical abuse, music in the liturgy, the Novus Ordo, and the Traditional Latin Mass. "Glimmers of Hope" are also included to show that progress IS being made! Click on the image to order at Amazon. It's available on Kindle, too.

Contact Me

Follow by Email

Followers

Total Pageviews

About Me

My husband and I live in Baker City, Oregon. I care deeply about the liturgy, and pray ardently for the "reform of the reform". I think we've strayed far from our Catholic identity over the last 50 years, and we need to return to the traditional teachings of the Church in order to regain lost ground.